PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-05, MUMBAI v. M/S VODAFONE WEST LTD. (MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.)
ITA/485/2026 · 2026-07-06
Dinesh Mehta, Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11269 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11269 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 485/2026, CM APPL. 40739/2026, CM APPL. 40740/2026 & CM APPL. 40741/2026
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-05, MUMBAI .....Appellant Through: Mr.Shlok Chandra, Sr. St. Counsel with Ms. Naincy Jain, JSC, Ms.Madhavi Shukla, JSC and Mr. Udit Dad, Adv.
versus
M/S VODAFONE WEST LTD. (MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.)
.....Respondent Through: Mr.Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Soumya Singh and Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
O R D E R %
06.07.2026
1. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department fairly informs that addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) has been set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal CIT (A), and the same has been affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the appeal filed by the Department.
2. He further informed that when the matter came to this Court, the Department’s appeal was remanded to the Assessing Officer in the light of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom (2014) 221 Taxman 323, and such issue has also been decided in favour of the assessee. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2026 at 11:57:26
3. In response whereof, Mr. Sachit Jolly, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, at the outset, submitted that when the addition including quantum itself has been set aside on merits, there cannot be any question of imposition of penalty unless there is a finding of concealment or contumacious conduct.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any question of law, much less any substantial question of law being involved requiring interpretation.
5. The appeal, therefore, fails.
6. All pending applications stand disposed of.
DINESH MEHTA, J.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
JULY 6, 2026 neelam/rajshree This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2026 at 11:57:26